It doesn't matter how many people follow it. It doesn't make it anymore right then...the bloods and the crips! Wrong and misleading is wrong and misleading, no matter whose doing it and YEA RIGHT they remove people, HAHA what a joke. There are 100's or thousands of catholic priest that thinks is ok to sodomize and have anal sex with little boys and teenagers.
You can call the pope a "religious figure " but he certainly doesn't qualify for people getting on their knees, crying and kissing his has. That's just weird and so biblically wrong to worship like that.

And when those priests are found out they are removed from office, and I think your 100's or thousands projection is a bit high. By the way there are Protestants who rape children as well yet it does not demonize every Protestant. In fact their are Protiestant churches all over the country that preach hate towards a certain group of people, it does not make Protestants as a group evil.

In every church you are going to find bad people, it does not mean that the church as a while is bad though.

I , believe it or not don't give even the smallest crap about the pope. I'm only onto the Father the Son & the Holy Spirit. I was just asking my questions to try to understand the weirdness of it all.
I don't even consider the pope or the catholic church something to debate. They simply don't matter to me. Nor does the fact that Flo calls me names

1)I think that comment is nonsense. Unless you are lumping the apostate sects of early Christianity in with Christ's true Church. Of course, heresy has existed in the Church since the beginning and it is our job to root it out, even if it offends people or hurts their feelings. Heresy will continue to exist in the Church until Christ's return.

2) Catholics don't officially worship the Pope, but the office still hovers dangerously close to idolatry. When people start worshipping or praying to the Pope, that's when it becomes idolatry. Of course, that can apply to any leader, but the Catholic Church seems to specifically invite idolatry with it's hierarchical system of Pope, Bishops, Priests, etc. Other denominations of Christianity (note that I didn't say Catholics aren't Christians), have a hierarchical system of government (Methodist, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc.), but the temptation to worship those in leadership doesn't seem to be as pronounced as it is in Catholicism.

1) In the Early Church I dont think you would be able to know what was truth and what wasnt...there were so many thousands of writings flying around...its true to say that any personalized canon of any early church would have included papers NOT in the Biblical Canon...The one compiled for EXACTLY that reason...the whole reason why Constantine needed a direct and agreed canon for Christianity is because the Early Church didnt have one.

I wonder how he truely felt when he chose Christianity for the State religion because of uniformity of belief...and then found it was as ununiform as the various strands of paganism

We can look back and lable the heretical sects now, because we have a majority agreed base to do that with...a majority base, YOU have already rulled out for being synonmous with the truth, dont forget.

We all know the only way to be absolutely sure is to delete EVERYTHING Roman, and EVERYTHING Early Church and return to Pentecost. That essentially means you have the Knowledge of Christs Ministry, and the Jewish Cannon...and THATS IT...but you dont do that do you Nathan? and neither do I...so we must remember, whether Constentine was legitamate or not...we have him to thank for creating a base for what we believe post Christ...for sifting through the Early Church Chaos, and presenting one, largely aggreed upon collection of documents to represent our absolute.

2) The Popes high regard, is for the same reason that his is the Superior of that denomination. I personally believe thats founded on an assumption that I deam incorrect. However...that doesnt mean I am deliberately nasty to every single Roman who DOES believe that assumption. With regards to your extraordinarily long History in this section of essentially persecuting those who hold that opinion, is a Step I refuse to take. In times past you have clearly stated its because you dont believe they are Christian at all. Therefore you feel obliged, at least in the written word, to pronounce The Gospel According to Nathan, and to lable your opinion on the matter as "The Truth" When really...you are not the one whose going to have to judge.

But its not just that you have those thoughts, its that you say them in such a manner, you effectively alienate those who are of that mind. Why would you want to hurt and upset others like that is beyond me. I stick up for them against the might of Rosario, because I am absolutely not afraid to tell you precisely how I feel. I am not detered by your status of administrator on this forum, nor by your proximity to Matt Hughes...and I have the stamina and will to think that it matters. I am one step removed because I dont wholly believe what Roman Catholics do...but I know it well enough to fight its battles. Its largely because I can see things from other peoples point of view so well I can usually fight both sides of a debate.

Secondly...if you have a problem with the Episcopal Set up...then you have a problem with Saint Pauls instructions. The idea of a Heirachical priesthood was developed by Saint Paul, its in one of his Epistles...I forget which one without looking, but could be Titus...where he outlines a structure that replaces the Commune which 1)doesnt work for large groups, 2) doesnt work for groups separated by geography....and three...Saint Paul does already come across this notion of worshipping the leader...for doesnt he say how pleased he is that he never baptised any but his closest friends, so they cant claim baptism via him...as they are doing of certain leaders and then arguing over which leader is THE LEADER....rather then seeing all are baptised through Christ, never mind which leader physically conducts the Baptism.

But does that diswade him from outlining and authorising a Pontifical Basis for the Church....or are you going to go into dangerous terrirtory and claim that the Roman Catholics inserted that Epistle into the Bible to suit their set-up

I assume your refering to what happened in Argentina after they lost the Faulklands war..?

What exactly are you accusing Francis of? Are you saying he supported the Military dictatorship? or are you accusing him of supporting the Communist Rebels?

The problem with this, is the same problem with accusing the previos Pope of Benedict XVI of being a Nazi.

EVERYONE who lived in Argentina would have had sympathies with one side or another during that period of time. If he wasnt political, and wasnt killing people, then his sympathies do not make him a terrorist

Similarly...EVERY male youth in 1930s Germany would have been invested in The Hitler Youth movement. To NOT be part of that would probably mean you wouldnt make it through the 1940s alive.

Its no different to me. YES he took sides passively in a civil war...but if he didnt take an active role, then who cares...and believe me, he wouldnt have survived thirty odd years since, if he had been directly or even remotely involved politically, or in killings

Meanwhile...in Rome...Francis I has said he would like "A poor church, for the poor" Guess he's going to take his sickle and demolish the Roman Curia by half lol Apparently, one of the Cardinals said he should name himself Clement...because the last Pope to be called Clement was the Pope responsible for the supression orders against the Jesuits, and it would be consider a rebuke, and a righting of a wrong in history...apparently, Francis laughed, and said he would prefer to be called Francis because he wants his focus to be on the poor.

I assume your refering to what happened in Argentina after they lost the Faulklands war..?

What exactly are you accusing Francis of? Are you saying he supported the Military dictatorship? or are you accusing him of supporting the Communist Rebels?

The problem with this, is the same problem with accusing the previos Pope of Benedict XVI of being a Nazi.

EVERYONE who lived in Argentina would have had sympathies with one side or another during that period of time. If he wasnt political, and wasnt killing people, then his sympathies do not make him a terrorist

Similarly...EVERY male youth in 1930s Germany would have been invested in The Hitler Youth movement. To NOT be part of that would probably mean you wouldnt make it through the 1940s alive.

Its no different to me. YES he took sides passively in a civil war...but if he didnt take an active role, then who cares...and believe me, he wouldnt have survived thirty odd years since, if he had been directly or even remotely involved politically, or in killings

Meanwhile...in Rome...Francis I has said he would like "A poor church, for the poor" Guess he's going to take his sickle and demolish the Roman Curia by half lol Apparently, one of the Cardinals said he should name himself Clement...because the last Pope to be called Clement was the Pope responsible for the supression orders against the Jesuits, and it would be consider a rebuke, and a righting of a wrong in history...apparently, Francis laughed, and said he would prefer to be called Francis because he wants his focus to be on the poor.

He was politically involved by his own admissions. He NOW says that he met with people to plea for mercy for some of the religious prisoners and that they (at least two he knew personally) were released soon after.

Although he suggests he had no power (or responsibility) in them being kidnapped and tortured (which ironically happened right after he publically shunned them), he seems to readily admit that he may have had enough political power to see them shown some mercy.

Who knows? I understand what your saying though. He had to remain silent to stay alive.